Research and learning on a variety of topics, from health to computers, parenting to cooking, brewing to politics.

Friday, June 29, 2007

Why was Vaillancourt silent for 20 Years?

Steve Vaillancourt accused Raymond Buckley of possessing Child Pornography. Reports differ upon the nature of their past relationship. Some claim both men are openly gay, but I've only found quotes of Buckley admitting a Homosexual Orientation.

"I have been vilified by people who say I should have done this 20 years ago," Vaillancourt said last night. "Believe me, I have agonized long and hard about this."-Steve Vaillancourt, July, 2007

The problem is, all of Vaillancourt's claims of having reported the crimes boil down to vague hints and innuendo dropped in the ears of Democratic leaders. All the men to whom Vaillancourt supposedly unburdened his soul flat out deny any such conversations took place.

Why would Vaillancourt, a Republican, report the alleged crimes of a Democrat to the leaders of the local Democratic party?

Why didn't he call the police?

If he really cared more about having political ammunition than stopping Child Pornography, Why didn't he call Republican leaders?

He claims to have uttered the phrase "There's a lot more about Ray Buckley that you need to know" to a former mayor and an outgoing Democratic Chair in 2005. That's hardly a damning accusation.

According to his own claims, refuted by those to whom he allegedly spoke,

"He told two prominent Democrats years ago that veteran party powerbroker Ray Buckley had a "penchant for pedophilia," though to date, he says, he has never taken that allegation to police.

Who among us actually believes a politician of ANY party would contact the police to initiate an investigation based upon the phrase "penchant for pedophilia" uttered by a bitter political rival?

A former Democrat himself, Vaillancourt was Buckley's landlord for many years. He said he took overseas trips with Buckley, including one to Amsterdam.

However, he said, "There has never been a sexual relationship between me and Mr. Buckley ... I'm not openly gay, whatsoever. I've never said I'm gay."

Was this one of the trips to Amsterdam that Buckley allegedly purchased Kiddie Porn?

Take a closer look at the phrase:

I'm not openly gay, whatsoever. I've never said I'm gay.

Emphasis Mine. Why would a politician, a group that's normally so careful about their words, have the word "openly" in that sentence?

Raymond Buckley was cleared of all charges, and the New Hampshire police considered filing charges against Vaillancourt over the accusations, but Vaillancourt sent his letter to the Governor, NOT the police. Buckley has gone on to become the head of the New Hampshire Democratic party, something Vaillancourt was apparently trying to prevent when he mailed the Governor his letter.

Is this entire mess is a case of a bitter former lover trying to destroy the man he used to love?

There's a more disturbing aspect to this story. If Vaillancourt was indeed concealing Buckley's possession of child Pornography, why was he doing it? Was he a submissive obeying his master? More disturbingly, was he too a fan of Child Pornography? Did he conceal it because he himself enjoyed it?

The more questions one asks, the more dark and twisted the mind of Steve Vaillancourt appears. Is he a Pedophile who spent 16 years saturated with child pornography? Buckley has been cleared and no evidence to support the allegations has been found. If Vaillancourt was telling the truth, then that massive stash of Child Pornography has to have gone SOMEWHERE. Does Vaillancourt have it? Was it one of the things he took with him when Vaillancourt and Buckley parted ways?

In a way, it's more comforting to think that Vaillancourt is merely a lying monster, willing to throw out any slander for the sake of destroying an opponent. The most comforting, the most positive view of events is that he's willing to make false accusations of Pedophilia for political gain.

What kind of monster is Vaillancourt, and why do the people of New Hampshire keep voting for him?

More to the point, why haven't the police investigated him? They have a confession from Vaillancourt to having been a party to the possession and smuggling of Child Pornography. The police investigated Buckley, going so far as to seize the computers at the Democratic headquarters. Why have they not done the same to investigate a man who bragged about living where child pornography was so pervasive you couldn't escape it?